Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Driscoll - always focusing on what's important
Or not...
Bob already has some good thoughts on this ridiculousness here so I won't add much.
But he also brought up a great point at the end of his post. Isn't that a woman teaching Scripture? What happened to not having women teach a man Scripture EVER? So it's okay as long as it's your wife?
This video just adds to the various reasons why I wouldn't pay a dime for a Driscoll book.
While we're on this topic, have you women signed the True Woman Manifesto yet?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
**i had to give myself a self edit, as i posted what i thought, and then realized that i was putting up very strong language on someone else's blog. So - take two, with some tasteful symbols:
i'm really, really sorry, but i have to share the first thing that comes to mind once she opens her mouth:
Holy *&^#ing s@%$. really? A man staying home with children maligns the word of God? Is being a caretaker of your children not 'providing' for your family? How in the hell do these people get to speak into Microphones??
I waited a few minutes before i hit 'post' on this, just to see if what i was typing was simple reactionary anger, but... no. it's not. This truly upset me.
Also, how crappy does he make all of his congregants that use daycare feel? Life is full of tough decisions, and this commentar
if letting your wife work and maybe, gasp!, even provide more income than you do for the family is sin, i LOVE living in sin.
I'd actually like to find a man who'd consider being a stay at home Dad.
Where did you find the women manifesto? That's awesome...like everything I ever ran away from in church in one paper.
From Tall Skinny Kiwi, a Driscoll book you can get behind:
"The Mark Driscoll R-Rated Study Bible for Dudes. Freak out your reformed Baptist friends with Mark Driscoll’s comedic, rude and radically male centered interpretations of scripture. This is a study Bible that reaches the emerging culture while denouncing the emerging church. A fashion section helps you to see the scriptural mandates for mechanic’s shirts and hemp necklaces. Puzzlingly endorsed by John Piper, an alternative sheet of negative endorsements from various reformed bloggers is available on request. Profanity in red letters. Crude and shocking sexual episodes in blue. Bible doctrine is related to MMA throughout."
Pretty sure this is actually a farce, but it's funny.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/10/true-woman-manifesto.html
I originally found it here Mary.
ridiculousness was a good word for it.
I feel like I should post and give some levity to the conversation.
I'm not one to say that my wife can't work, but she prefers, for the same reasons driscoll and his wife mentioned, to stay home with our children. Can anyone really say that it isn't ideal for a mom to be able to stay home with children? Now it may not be possible for some, hey I can dig that, but I think my children would be much different if they HAD to be in daycare everyday. It's a hard job to raise kids. My wife is good at it. Does that mean we don't have enough money sometimes, yes, but it is more than worth it.
I think he is also addressing the fact that some men are lazy and don't want to provide for their family. I don't think you can argue that either (and he said it was extreme circumstances for church discipline).
Let's also pull a greater context into question. Driscoll goes after men to be men, biblically. That is his whole mission. Win the men, win the family (my words summing up). Also, it appears that someone submitted the question for him to answer.
Just wanted to balance it a bit. Don't allow distaste for Mark in general to read things into what he's saying. Can you scripturally refute what he's saying? I'm not sure that you can.
"I'm not one to say that my wife can't work, but she prefers, for the same reasons driscoll and his wife mentioned, to stay home with our children. Can anyone really say that it isn't ideal for a mom to be able to stay home with children? Now it may not be possible for some, hey I can dig that, but I think my children would be much different if they HAD to be in daycare everyday. It's a hard job to raise kids. My wife is good at it. Does that mean we don't have enough money sometimes, yes, but it is more than worth it."
---I'm not saying stay at home mom's aren't great! If Kelli can stay home I would be thrilled! I'm saying stay at home dad's aren't being contrary to scripture (which is what Mark is saying).
"I think he is also addressing the fact that some men are lazy and don't want to provide for their family. I don't think you can argue that either (and he said it was extreme circumstances for church discipline)."
---The problem is, he is equating stay at home dads with being lazy which is ridiculous.
"Let's also pull a greater context into question. Driscoll goes after men to be men, biblically. That is his whole mission. Win the men, win the family (my words summing up). Also, it appears that someone submitted the question for him to answer."
-I think when you look at the Bible, if that is his whole mission, then he's missing about 98% of what the Bible says mission is about. He's not encouraging men to be men "biblically", he's encouraging them to be ultimate fighting champions. Plus I think the whole notion of "win the men, win the family" is ridiculous.
"Just wanted to balance it a bit. Don't allow distaste for Mark in general to read things into what he's saying. Can you scripturally refute what he's saying? I'm not sure that you can."
-I don't have to "scripturally refute" what he's saying because he can't scripturally support what he's saying! It was a half-hearted attempt and extremely poor exegesis that got Mark to that conclusion on stay at home dads to begin with (which is honestly rare for Mark).
I'm not sure that I agree that in a debate if someone is not able to back their comment up scripturally we don't have to scripturally refute it. Isn't that really the whole point, to show our scriptural basis for everything we do?
What of it is bad exegesis? Not trying to argue for argument, just trying to understand your point. When the bible says that the womans role is to stay at home, like in titus, how is it bad exegesis? I suppose that you could say that it is a flawed application, but scripture is fairly clear that men and women have different roles. It doesn't mean that we are not equally important, but we have different roles to play. I'm curious to hear your exegetical argument. Maybe you don't want to here, and that's cool, but I don't disagree with driscoll as adamantly as many do here. And he allows for extenuating circumstances. If you want your wife to work just to have more money and have stuff, I don't see any scriptural support for that. If she needs to work just to make it, that's cool, and Driscoll allows for that. I think that his comments aren't nearly as strong as are being interpreted.
He is trying to use scripture to answer a specific question that was posed, I'm assuming by a member of the congregation.
Sorry if I am coming across too argumentative, but I'm just not seeing what everyone else is. I do enjoy the debate.
by the way, I just reread my post and I'm not pointing my finger at you, dustin, when I'm talking about wanting more money and things. I meant the preverbal "you". Just wanted to clarify.
"I'm not sure that I agree that in a debate if someone is not able to back their comment up scripturally we don't have to scripturally refute it. Isn't that really the whole point, to show our scriptural basis for everything we do?"
-you're suggesting false logic. You're suggesting it's okay if one person doesn't back up their comment scripturally, but that I'm supposed to scripturally disprove their non-scriptural opinion. That like asking me to prove the non-existence of something, it's impossible. Or like saying, Mark said that "aliens are taking over the earth", I want you to scripturally disprove it.
But to go along with that, what do you want me to scripturally disprove? That stay-at-home dad's aren't lazy? That it's not a sin for a woman to earn the paycheck and a man to take care of the kids? The Bible doesn't say anything about stay at home dads. And the passage in 1 Tim. that speaks about taking care of widows is more than a stretch to try to apply it to stay at home dads. I agree that if you're lazy and not taking care of your family, then it's a reason for church discipline. But to equate a stay-at-home dad with someone being lazy and not taking care of their family isn't justified.
"When the bible says that the womans role is to stay at home, like in titus, how is it bad exegesis?"
--Where does it say in Titus that the woman's role is to stay at home?
"He is trying to use scripture to answer a specific question that was posed, I'm assuming by a member of the congregation."
--not everything can be answered with scripture. and when we try to force an answer biblically to things the bible doesn't address (like stay at home dads), it turns out creating barriers to the gospel which is what Mark demonstrates perfectly in this case.
"Sorry if I am coming across too argumentative, but I'm just not seeing what everyone else is. I do enjoy the debate."
--no prob. it's cool.
Thanks, I appreciate you're patronage.
"Thanks, I appreciate you're patronage."
Hmm. Patronage is one of those words that could be positive or negative.
Sorry that I came back a little heavy handed in these replies. I tend to be too blunt and that's not fair to an honest discussion so I'll cool it down if that would make this more fruitful for both of us.
I didn't take it that way. And I didn't mean it negatively. I appreciate your thoughts.
Post a Comment